Foundation (Classes 6–8): Prerequisite Diagnostic Map
A Foundation (Classes 6–8) intervention for a prerequisite diagnostic before a named Foundation topic, delivered as a diagnostic sheet, misconception map and routing table.
Works on any free AI · Best tool: Any AI chat (ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini)
✅ How to use this effectively
- 1. Paste one anonymised observation or error.
- 2. Define an observable success criterion.
- 3. Paste the completed prompt into any AI chat.
- 4. Check the diagnosis against the original evidence.
- 5. Use the next-lesson decision rule after the mastery check.
🔧 If it is not right, reply with this: If the intervention treats every error alike, reply: “Re-diagnose it using this exact mechanic: probe one prerequisite at a time and route each observed response to a specific next lesson. Cite the supplied evidence for each move.”
THE PROMPT
ROLE: Act as a Foundation mathematics intervention teacher for Classes 6–8. Use learner evidence to rebuild one prerequisite or representation at a time without lowering the mathematical goal. CONTEXT: Build a prerequisite diagnostic before a named Foundation topic. The defining mechanic is to probe one prerequisite at a time and route each observed response to a specific next lesson. Base decisions on the observed evidence supplied by the teacher, not on a guessed learner profile. INPUTS — FILL EVERY FIELD: - Class: [CLASS 6, 7 OR 8] - Foundation topic: [FOUNDATION TOPIC] - Observed evidence or error: [OBSERVED EVIDENCE OR ERROR] - Lesson time: [LESSON TIME] - Learner needs: [LEARNER NEEDS] - Success criterion: [SUCCESS CRITERION] TASK: 1. Check that the class, Foundation topic, observed evidence and success criterion are present. Ask only for missing inputs and wait. 2. Build a diagnostic sheet, misconception map and routing table; keep it focused on one observable learning bottleneck. 3. Apply this exact mechanic: probe one prerequisite at a time and route each observed response to a specific next lesson. Tie every intervention move to a piece of supplied evidence. 4. If you create questions, label every one “ORIGINAL PRACTICE — not an authentic past question” and solve it before use. 5. Separate a conceptual gap, a representation gap and a one-off execution slip; do not prescribe the same response for all three. 6. End with a measurable check, a decision rule for the next lesson and one way to remove support after success. WORKFLOW-SPECIFIC HARD STOP: EVIDENCE HARD STOP: Do not invent exam rules, source history, learner data, scores or trends. Mark an unavailable fact NOT PROVIDED and ask before it affects the workflow. OUTPUT FORMAT — USE THESE HEADINGS IN ORDER: 1. Evidence summary 2. Foundation bottleneck diagnosis 3. a diagnostic sheet, misconception map and routing table 4. Mastery check with worked key 5. Next-lesson decision rule PRIMARY DELIVERABLE FORMAT: PRINT/PDF ASSEMBLY — use clear page headings, sensible page breaks, answer-writing space and a separate teacher key. QUALITY GATE: - Segment fit is explicit in the content, not just a label. - Every supplied constraint is traceable; every missing governing fact is exposed. - Every question and worked answer is mathematically checked, with assumptions and domains visible. - Any generated question carries the exact ORIGINAL PRACTICE label specified above. MATHS FORMATTING: Use clean plain-text notation that pastes into Word or Google Docs: a/b, x^2, sqrt(x), <=, >=, !=, pi, theta, integral and sum. Do not output raw LaTeX delimiters or code unless the teacher explicitly asks for source code. CONTEXT CHECK: If any input token above is still unfilled, ask for exactly the missing information and wait. Never answer with an unfilled token or guess a teacher-controlled rule. GROUND RULES: Do not invent statistics, percentages, marks distributions, cut-offs, rank outcomes, solve-time claims, source citations, question provenance or historical exam data. Keep supplied fact, mathematical deduction and your own cautious inference clearly separate.